Yet long before Trump entered politics, the United States has been engaged with China in the WTO over dumping cases. The U.S. filed 16 anti-dumping cases against China during the Obama administration alone. But as of December 2016, China launched an ongoing case in the WTO to change anti-dumping investigation protocol. As we consider the possibility of further WTO clashes between the U.S. and China, this case helps shed light on the real stakes involved between these two powers – where victory itself outweighs the dollar value being fought over.

China’s accession to the WTO in 2001 came with a fifteen year window during which China was considered a non-market economy (NME) during anti-dumping investigations. Countries (usually developing countries) that maintain domestic price controls in order to protect and foster local companies are considered NMEs. WTO member nations are at liberty to apply or remove NME status as they choose if the WTO deems the label appropriate.

The United States and the EU argue that China has not yet proven its industries are market driven, thus allowing indirect government support. In turn, China argues that western regulators used China’s NME status to pick unrealistic comparables and are ignoring Section 15 so as to continue justifying dumping accusations, to which they have filed a formal complaint. Most WTO members have already removed China’s NME status in their bilateral relations.

While the ruckus at the WTO may grab headlines, the actual bilateral trade at stake paints a contrary picture from the one popularly accepted, of a porous U.S. trade border where goods can easily enter.

The United States has long challenged or circumvented the WTO in the background (from continuing subsidies to U.S. cotton farmers, to refusing to reduce regulations leveled at Mexian tuna), but the new administration is instead bringing matters into the spotlight, while looking for a ‘win’ to bring to home. By unhappy coincidence, China is gearing for its own symbolic victory. There is a long running narrative that China is wrongfully discriminated against and besieged by the so called champions of free markets. China’s state run Economic Daily reported that in 2016, 91 dumping cases were filed against China at the WTO from all countries, a historic high. Whether out of frustration or aspiration to form its own multilaterals, China’s challenge is also a test of whether the WTO dispute settlement is fundamentally biased in favor of Western countries. Not ‘winning’ in the international governmental framework could create an opportunity for China to break from it.

Understanding the implications of China’s market classification reveals two major points: (1) The actual changes at stake in the WTO framework are minimal compared with domestic barriers in place; and (2) the symbolic powers of WTO classification and the international legal framework are enormous, and draw much more attention and political leverage.

Symbols are important, but the pursuit of them can incur inordinate costs. President Trump’s interview with the Wall Street Journal April 12 suggests there is some hope for compromises to be reached with China on trade. But should the United States and China be unable to reach a bilateral understanding, this tug-of-war over WTO market status could reshape the international order in the name of only a tiny sliver of world commerce.

Ann Listerud holds a Masters from UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy. She currently works in finance and is based in Tokyo. Follow her on twitter @lianlist.